Arbitrary label assigned by the Manufacturer.
As allowed by NAR and NFPA rules.
That's phunnie!
Good thing willing manufacturers are banned at the same time!
In case you have not figured it out yet, all these rules are arbitrary.
Are you a manufacturer?
are you suggesting that they may be in violation of NFPA 1125 where it spells out quite clearly what is required for labeling....
if the A8 is actually an A3, then it should be labeled as such according to the requirements of NFPA 1125
The real question is will the NAR S&T enforce NFPA 1125 ? I would submit that if the NAR wants to have any credibility in its motor certs for safety or contest, they would have to....
almax: email me with a valid email addr ...
shockie B)
jerry: more bogus information: the requirements for a motor to be certified is laid out pretty clear in NFPA 1125: the fact that neither Estes not the NAR will correct the labeling speaks volumes about the NAR-Estes non-relationship and the NAR S&T motor certification service program failings......
shockie B)
Not as bad as the Rocket Services F36-5 ;-)
IF as you say, they are violating current NFPA-1125 regulation, then they are committing crimes in some 32 states, right?
So why have they not been approached, or why have they not taken preemptive action to correct?
I say it is because the regs as written ALLOW them to call the motor whatever they want.
If not then both AT and Estes and likely Quest are in violation.
You just wiped out all of the industry that TRA/Rogers/Kelly/Rosenfield didn't under HPR.
I'm not saying "they" whoever "they" are ......are violating anything.....U R....
whats the penalty for mislabeling of rocket motors? none that I am aware of..... just because certain model rocket motors(or for that matter HPR) may be out of spec to NFPA 1125 does not mean that it is the certifying orgs responsibility to correct such mislabeling..... so who is the AHJ here? the state fire marshal of each state? the CPSC? ...
shockie B)
Since I have no idea what NFPA 1125 specifically says about the labeling, what, exactly, does it say?
If the wording is 'open' enough, it could end up meaning any of several things. For example, the difference between mean, median, and mode (any of which could be picked as 'average', if that is the word used).
David Erbas-White
shockwaveriderz wrote:
There has been mention in the past of the average of the "usable" or "non-negligable" thrust. The FSI motors with big spikes and long low thrust tails (hardly "sustaining thrust" since they fell out of the air unless you built light) and the A10 mini motor were often cited.
Not sure about the A8.
They did FORCE FAI to change the F100 to the F80 since 100 was both a lie and over the NFPA average thrust limit for a Model Rocket motor.
david: as far as I can tell NFPA 1125 only says the following:
8.1.3 Model rocket motors, motor-reloading kits, and components offered for sale, exposed for sale, sold, used, or madeavailable to the public shall be examined and tested to determine whether they comply with the standards and requirements detailed in 8.1.7.8.2.3 High power rocket motor, motor-reloading kit, and components offered for sale, exposed for sale, sold, used, or
made available to the public shall be examined and tested to determine whether they comply with the standards and requirements
detailed in 8.2.7.
so 8.1.7 and 8.2.7 say the same thing:
8.1.7 Before granting such certification, samples of a motor or reloadable motor system shall be examined as follows:(1) Static testing, conducted at or corrected to sea level and 20°C ± 5°C (68°F ± 9°F), of a minimum of 10 samples to
determine that total impulse, average thrust, and delay time comply with the following requirements:
(a) Standard deviation of the total impulse data shall be no greater than
6.7 percent of the mean measured value.(b) No time delay shall be measured to have a variation greater than 1 second or 20 percent (whichever is
greater, but not to exceed 3 seconds) from the labeled value.
(c) Average thrust shall be within 20 percent (or 1 N, whichever is greater) of the average thrust that is
computed by dividing the mean total impulse measured during propellant burn time by the mean propellant
burn time.
(2) For metal-casing reloadable motors, rupture testing of 1 sample to ensure that the casing complies with the burst
pressure and longitudinal failure mode requirements of 7.4.4
(3) Thermal testing to ensure that the casing temperature during and after static firing complies with 7.4.1
(4) Heat sensitivity testing to ensure that the motor or motorreloading kit complies with 7.1.2
(5) Examination of the packaging, marking, and instructions to verify compliance with all provisions of 7.12 through
7.14(c) Imprinted average thrust shall be within 20 percent
(or 10 N, whichever is greater) of the average thrust
that is computed by dividing the mean total impulse
measured during propellant burn time by the mean
propellant burn time.
(2) For metal-casing reloadable motors, rupture testing of
one sample to ensure that the casing complies with the
burst pressure and failure mode requirements of 7.4.3
and 7.4.4
(3) Thermal testing to ensure that the casing temperature
during and after static firing complies with 7.4.1
(4) Heat sensitivity testing to ensure that the motor or motorreloading
kit complies with 7.1.2
(5) Examination of the packaging, marking, and instructions
to verify compliance with all provisions of 7.12 through 7.24..
so 8.17/8.27 both point to 7.12 through 7.24:
7.13 Rocket Motor Marking.7.13.1 A rocket motor or motor-reloading kit shall have imprinted on its external surface, casing, or wrapper, a recognized
code indicating the nominal performance parameters - for example, "C6-5" [for a model rocket motor having a
total impulse of 5.01 to 10.0 N-sec (1.1 to 2.2 pound-seconds), an average thrust of 6 N and a time delay of 5 seconds] or
"5-second time delay module" (for a time delay module having a time delay of
5 seconds) - and the date of manufacture orequivalent coding.
Exception: If the size, shape, or surface of the rocket motor does not permit the required designation to be printed on it, then the equivalent
coding shall be printed on the packaging.
7.13.2* Rocket motors, motor-reloading kits, and pyrotechniccomponents shall be marked with information complying with
the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 16 CFR 1500.
Exception: If the size, shape, or surface of the rocket motor does not
permit the required information to be printed on it, then the information
shall be printed on the packaging.
so 7.13 references 16 CF 1500. and the relavent part is:
Sec. 1500.83 Exemptions for small packages, minor hazards, and special circumstances (36) Individual toy rocket propellant devices and separate delay train and/or recovery system activation devices intended for use with premanufactured model rocket engines are exempt from bearing the full labeling required by section 2(p)(1) of the act (repeated in Sec. 1500.3(b)(14)(i)) insofar as such requirements would be necessary because the articles are flammable or generate pressure, provided that: (i) The devices are designed and constructed in accordance with the specifications in Sec. 1500.85(a) (8) or (9): (ii) Each individual device or retail package of devices bears the following: (A) The statement ``WARNING--FLAMMABLE: Read instructions before use''; (B) The common or usual name of the article; (C) A statement of the type of engine and use classification; (D) Instructions for safe disposal; and (E) Name and place of business of manufacturer or distributor; and (iii) Each individual rocket engine or retail package of rocket engines distributed to users is accompanied by an instruction sheet bearing complete cautionary labeling and instructions for safe use and handling of the individual rocket engines.
...Type of Engine and Use classification... Since I have no idea what NFPA 1125 specifically says about the labeling,
99.99% of Estes customers don't have a clue that the data sheet, the NAR, or anything outside of what they bought exists.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
I am wondering WHAT you are saying.
It SEEMED like you concluded they (Estes, Quest, Aerotech "brand" by RCS) were in violation (of both NFPA-1125 and NAR rules).
It also SEEMED you stated NAR or TRA were complicit with the labeling misstatement since they are involved in knowing what it is at all stages.
It seemed you were saying in this last message that IF there is a violation as YOU concluded, that the "AHJ's" would have a "caue of action".
Please correct me.
Jerry
Basically, Jerry is correct. There is significant leeway in the labelling. The only thing he NAR has ever insisted on is that the letter be in the right class range. For a while the FSI E5 was certified as a D motor, and the FSI A4 was certified as a very wimpy B motor. THe eventually tightened up, and FSI increased the E5 performance to get it at the low end of the E class. They may have done te same thing with the F100, although I don't recall it ever being certified as an E motor. IIRC it was just barely under the 40 NS limit, but one standard deviation crossed the line into F territory.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
The DELAY is related to the labeled value.
Has that test EVER been done?
Smoking gun.
Has that test EVER been done?
Clearly has NOT, repeat NOT, been done.
Is the "proper" labeling anywhere in the Estes, Quest, or Aerotech by RCS instructions (packaging) to make up for the fact it is NOT on the casing for sure??
That leaves out HPR entirely.
"Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late)"
A definition that literally no longer exists.
There is a 5% (of peak thrust) threshold and a 10% threshold.
FSI is gone due to compliance issues not commercial issues. And that was in the late 80's.
Of course!
A feature HPR users are excluded from enjoying by the same clubs (rulewriting) that they wish they could avoid entirely.
Jerry
jerry: quit trying to put your words in my mouth.......I never said any of that...you are saying that based on your own interpretations which do not have the force of law...
shockie B)
sad but true... so how does the NAR alert that 99.99% of the estes customer base that it does exist and why it exists and why Estes should support the growth of adult membership in the NAR....Alot of adults have children.....model rocketry is the perfect family sport/hobby activity... and maybe those kids will grown up and do HPR.......but Estes doesn't make nor sale any HPR .... oh nevermind....
shockie B)
shockie B)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.